Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, which I regard as being particularly important and timely. It is a bill that contains a series of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Intelligence Services Act.

In his second reading speech, the Attorney advised us that these amendments would address three key areas:

… facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) supporting and cooperating with the Australian

Defence Force (ADF) on military operations;

enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency Ministerial authorisations to IS Act agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions; and

enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process.

This legislation has been the subject of consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It reported in the report entitled Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. It made 16 unanimous recommendations including, importantly, that this bill be passed.

The government has accepted the 16 recommendations. Thirteen of them will result in minor amendments to the bill and the explanatory memorandum. Two other recommendations will result in small changes to administrative arrangements and the final recommendation was that the bill be passed and the government has supported that. That is why we are discussing the bill at this time. It is, in my view, urgent legislation. It is, in my view, one of a number of measures that are urgent and we await a package of further amendments. But I stress the difficulty in drafting them and that readying them for us ought not to delay the further passage of them. I think the legislation in relation to metadata, which we are yet to see, is absolutely important to conclude the range of measures that are very necessary to deal with the difficult circumstances that we face.

Let me just take the opportunity, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, to put these matters in perspective. I well remember 9/11, when planes were flown into those buildings in New York. They were terrorist acts, planned by people who had gone to the United States to deliberately hijack planes and to fly them into those buildings. I remember the tragic events in Bali, in which so many young Australians died. I do not think these are matters that we can ignore. I find it extraordinary that I have to come into this parliament and hear legislation like this questioned in the way in which it has been by the member for Melbourne. Fortunately, he is alone in those criticisms. But he seems to suggest that all we have to do is to sit back, leave all these tragic events that have been occurring abroad, focus on young people here in Australia and deal with counter-radicalisation. I think counter-radicalisation has a role. I note that the government is pursuing that in the work that it is undertaking with a variety of organisations in the Australian community to identify people of potential concern. But I tell you: there is no way that governments in Australia would walk away from the criminal law and the responsibility to identify people who may have committed criminal offences, to investigate them and charge them and, if guilty, convict and sentence them. They would not walk away from it and say, 'All we need to have is a program of countercriminalisation.' That was the most ridiculous argument that I have ever heard, that you should ignore the fundamental problem and simply focus on this idea that you can convince people that this is something terrible and that you should not be involved in it—and that he would have us believe that!

I heard a second argument today, which absolutely appalled me. I have just come back from the Middle East and I have seen something of the tragedy that is occurring there. I have seen the loss of life, I have seen young children left without parents and without any education or any future because of what is happening in Syria today. The member for Melbourne had the audacity to say that because of our involvement we are, in some way, responsible for the tragedy that is occurring in Syria today. Look, it may have just been an extension, that because we were involved in Afghanistan at some other point in time then maybe people in Syria should have felt that for that reason we should be to blame. But really, to argue that we were in some way responsible for the conflict in Syria was absolutely appalling. He seems to have a view that if you put your head down and hope that nothing will happen then it may all go away, or perhaps if we leave it to others they may be able to deal with it. I have never heard such irresponsible comments from any member of parliament when I hear those sorts of observations.

I want to deal with a couple of other points that the honourable member made before I lose all my time. The member made some observations about whether or not there should be a monitor in relation to security issues and drew the inference that because there is nobody in that role at the moment then we should be feeling that this legislation should not proceed. Let me make it very clear: the relevant parliamentary committee has been of a view that there should be a parliamentary monitor. The committee in fact, in its earlier reports, recommended to the government that it should finalise the appointment of an independent national security legislation monitor, and the government has made it clear that it will do so. The committee said it should happen reasonably quickly, and the minister responding to the committee's report has said:

The government firmly supports independent oversight of national security and counter-terrorism legislation. The Government has decided to retain the office of the Independent National Security Monitor and will announce a new Monitor shortly.

So, this suggestion that there will be no monitor and that that should be a serious reason for not proceeding with this legislation has no substance at all.

I must say, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, and having had previous ministerial oversight of it, that it has been I think one of the most thorough-going reviewing committees of this parliament. It is one of great credibility. It is led by my colleague the member for Wannon with great distinction. The member for Holt has previously had that role and is the deputy chair of it. The committee includes senior members from both sides of the parliament, and I think it has had an outstanding role. It has made recommendations, which the government has accepted, that have improved the legislation. And that is always the way in which this committee has worked. I congratulate the government on the way in which it has responded so positively. But I might say that it is not a committee that can always work as openly as other parliamentary committees might. When you are dealing with security issues and intelligence questions there are times at which the committees are taken into a degree of confidence in consideration of matters that have to be dealt with. And the committee has to absolutely handle with discretion how that sort of evidence is received and dealt with, because, quite frankly, you cannot afford to put people's lives at risk or to undermine the credibility of the work that is being done by intelligence agencies to deal with some of the risks we face.

But I want to take the opportunity in this debate to put into context why we are dealing with these issues at this time. And I want to use some observations made by people outside of Australia. I read recently the comments of Theresa May, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. She took up her post in 2010 and she said at the time that the threat to the West from al-Qaeda appeared to be waning and that they thought national security was coming under control. But, 4½ years later, the challenge of terrorism has become more acute .It was only a few days ago that she set out the scale of the ISIS challenge in a speech she made. In the United Kingdom the numbers involved are far greater than they are here. I think we have had some 70 young Australians who it is believed may have gone to Syria and Iraq. In the United Kingdom, more than 500 have done so. And she makes the point that they are engaging in a brutality that they may one day inflict at home. She revealed that some 40 different terror plots had been foiled by UK security services. Most strikingly, she declared that the terror threat to the United Kingdom was greater than ever.

I just want to read to the House some of the other observations she made:

But in the case of ISIL the danger is clear. They have already murdered British and American citizens in the most brutal and cowardly manner possible. They have attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters, including thousands of Europeans, Americans, Australians and British nationals. One of their terrorists has already struck in Europe, when he murdered four innocent civilians outside the Jewish Museum in Brussels earlier this year. And they have made clear that they want to go on attacking Western targets …

If ISIL succeed in firmly consolidating their grip on the land they occupy in Syria and Iraq, we will see the world’s first truly terrorist state established … We will see terrorists given the space to plot attacks against us, train their men and women, and devise new methods to kill indiscriminately … And the lesson of history tells us that when our enemies say they want to attack us, they mean it.

She also said:

The threat we face from ISIL is made even greater by the fact that there are at least 500 British nationals who have gone to Syria and Iraq, many of them to fight. Where they have dual nationality, I have the power to deprive them of their British citizenship and keep them out of our country.

She said that the first thing they had to do was stop young Britons travelling to Syria. She made the further point that they are working with other European countries to disrupt and prevent travel and, when they know that people are planning to travel, to strip them of their passports.

I make these points because it is not an Australian minister saying this. This is what is being said elsewhere by those who are well-informed and have the background and experience to be able to understand it. The risks they face are the risks we face. This legislation is to ensure that our law and intelligence agencies are in a position to act in a timely way to protect Australia's interests when we believe people may be involved in terrorism related activity. Giving our agencies the capacity to deal with these questions ought to be urgent, ought to be progressed as quickly as possible. I strongly support the legislation. I commend the government for bringing it forward and I commend the opposition for supporting it. But let me also say that I condemn the Greens for the way in which they have criticised these measures that are so widely supported and so essential to protecting this nation and its people.

See this speech in context